Download - Geotechnical Investigation.unlocked

8/10/2019 Geotechnical Investigation.unlocked

1/27

June 2010

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Stage 2 Student LearningCentre Development,Curtin University ofTechnology, Bentley

Submitted to:BG&E Pty Ltd484 Murray StPERTH WA 6000

R E P O R T

Report Number. 097642481-002-R-Rev0Distribution:

2 Copies - BG&E Pty Ltd (+ 1 Electronic)2 Copies - Golder Associates Pty Ltd


2/27

STAGE 2 STUDENT LEARNING CENTRE, CURTIN UNI

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................ ........................................................ ................................................ 1

2.0 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

3.0 FIELDWORK PROGRAMME .................................................................................................................................... 1

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................ ....................................................................... ..................... 2

4.1 Regional Geology ......................................................... ..................................................................... ........... 2

4.2 Subsurface Conditions .................................................. ........................................................ ........................ 2

4.3

Groundwater ................................................... ....................................................... ....................................... 3

5.0 DISCUSSION .................................................... ........................................................ ................................................. 3

5.1 Site Classification ......................................................................................................................................... 3

5.2 Foundation System ..................................................... ....................................................................... ........... 3

5.3 Site Preparation .................................................. ..................................................................... ..................... 4

5.3.1 Compaction ................................................. ....................................................... ..................................... 5

5.3.2 Approved Fill ........................................................... ..................................................................... ........... 5

5.4 Excavations .................................................................................................................................................. 5

5.5 Earth Retaining Structures ............................................................ ................................................................ 5

5.6 Earthquake Site Sub-Soil Class .......................................................... .......................................................... 6

5.7 Groundwater ................................................... ....................................................... ....................................... 6

5.8 Stormwater Disposal ..................................................... ........................................................ ........................ 6

5.9 Pavements and Floor Slabs .................................................. ....................................................................... . 6

6.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

TABLESTable 1: Pad Footing Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlement .................................................. 3

Table 2: Strip Footing Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlement ................................................. 4

Table 3: Earth Retaining Structure Design Parameters ................................................... ................................................... 6

Table 4: Field Permeability ........................................................ ................................................................... ....................... 6

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location Plan

Figure 2: Site Plan

June 2010Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0 i


3/27


June 2010Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0 ii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Cone Penetration Test Results

APPENDIX B Perth Sand Penetrometer Test Results

APPENDIX C Hand Auger Borehole Reports

APPENDIX D Limitations


4/27


1.0 INTRODUCTIONThis letter presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Stage 2 Student LearningCentre at the Curtin University of Technology, Bentley Campus. The work was authorised in an email fromMr Simon Jewell of BG&E Pty Ltd dated 7 December 2009.

The proposed site for the development is located adjacent to Mechanical Engineering Building 205 atCurtin University. The location of the development is shown on Figure 1 Location Plan. At the time ofinvestigation, the site was occupied by garden bed areas, trees and paved footpaths. A supplied survey planof the site shows the existing ground levels range between approximately RL 9.5 m and RL 10.5 m AHD.

At the time of investigation, a number of alternative arrangements for the development were underconsideration. Updated information on the proposed development was provided by Mr Simon Jewell ofBG&E Pty Ltd in an email dated 2 June 2010. Based on this information, it is now understood that theproposed development includes a four level building which will cover an area of approximately 960 m 2. It isalso understood that the proposed development does not include any basement levels.

2.0 OBJECTIVESThe objectives of the investigation were to:

assess subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the significant foundation support zoneacross the proposed building area, including likely seasonal variation in groundwater levels;

provide recommendations on suitable footing systems for the proposed development;

provide allowable bearing pressure and settlement estimates for shallow footings;

provide a site classification(s) in accordance with AS 2870 Residential Slabs and Footings;

te subsoil classification in accordance with AS 1170.4 2007 Earthquake actions in

itability for soak wells for the disposal of stormwater, plus the

mendations on geotechnical site preparation requirements, including fill placement and

profiles (temporary and permanent).

cone penetration testing (CPT) at two locations P1 and P2, to a depth of about 12.5 m below ground

provide recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for earth retaining structures;

provide a si Australia;

provide a qualitative assessment on the sucompletion of infiltration tests on the site;

provide recomcompaction;

provide a subgrade design CBR value for pavement and/or floor slab design; and

provide recommendations for excavated slope3.0 FIELDWORK PROGRAMMEThe fieldwork was conducted on 14 January 2010 and comprised the following:

level;

excavation of hand auger boreholes at two locations BH1 and BH2, to depths of 2.0 m and 1.8 m foreach borehole respectively;

Perth sand penetrometer (PSP) testing adjacent to each hand auger borehole to a depth of 1.8 m; and

infiltration testing at two locations, IT1 and IT2, using the inverse auger hole method at a depth of about1 m.

June 2010Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0 1


5/27


6/27


4.3 GroundwaterThe Perth Groundwater Atlas 1997 Edition indicates that the historical maximum inferred groundwater levelat the site ranged between approximately RL 6 m AHD and RL 7 m AHD, which is approximately 3 m to 4 mbelow the current ground surface. The Perth Groundwater Atlas 2004 Edition presenting inferredgroundwater level contours based on recorded groundwater levels in May 2003 (dry season) indicates thatthe inferred groundwater level at the site was approximately RL 4 m AHD (6 m below current groundsurface). The groundwater level is generally highest during August to October and lowest during March toJune. Both atlases indicate that the direction of groundwater flow direction is toward the north-east.

Measurement of groundwater levels was attempted in the holes remaining after the CPT testing (P1 and P2),which had collapsed at depths of 5.7 m and 4.9 m, respectively. No groundwater was encountered in eitherof these holes.

Golder carried out a Department of Water (DoW) groundwater database search, which indicates that fourmonitoring wells with historical groundwater level hydrographs are located approximately 1.5 km from thesite, of which three of the monitoring wells have been monitored until recently. The hydrographs indicate aseasonal variation in groundwater level of approximately 1.0 m to 1.5 m and generally indicate a decreasingtrend in groundwater levels. This correlates well with Davidson (1995) 1 , which indicates that seasonalvariations may vary from 1 m to 2 m.

5.0 DISCUSSION5.1 Site Classi ficationWe have assessed the site classification in accordance with AS 2870-2006, Residential Slabs andFootings. The site classification recommended for the site is Class A, subject to the site preparationrequirements outlined in Section 5.3 being carried out.

5.2 Foundation SystemStrip and pad footings are considered suitable for the proposed development. Allowable bearing pressuresand settlements for various footing sizes and embedment depths are presented in Table 1 and

Table 2 . These assume that the recommended site preparation and compaction (Section 5.3) has beencarried out and achieved below all footings.

Table 1: Pad Footing Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlement

Minimum Depth ofEmbedment (m)

Minimum PlanDimension (m)

Al lowable Work ingBearing Pressure (kPa)

Expected Settlement at Al lowable Bearing

Pressure (mm)

0.5

1 240 < 5

2 250 5 to 103 250 10 to 154 250 15 to 20

1

1 250 < 52 250 5 to 103 250 10 to 154 250 15 to 20

1 Davidson, W.A. (1995), Hydrogeology and Groundwater Resources of the Perth Region, Western Australia, Geological Survey of Western Australia.



7/27


Table 2: Strip Footing Maximum Allowable Bearing Pressures and Estimated Settlement

Minimum Depth ofEmbedment (m)

Minimum PlanDimension (m)

Al lowable Work ingBearing Pressure (kPa)

Expected Settlement at

Allowable BearingPressure (mm)

0.5

0.5 180 < 51 210 5 to 10

1.5 250 10 to 152 250 15 to 20

1

0.5 250 < 51 250 5 to 10

1.5 250 10 to 152 250 15 to 20

Allowable bearing pressures for footings of intermediate plan dimensions to those tabulated can beinterpolated. Footings that have a plan dimension either smaller or larger than those covered by the tableswill need to be considered individually along with other embedment depths. An allowable bearing pressureof 250 kPa is considered to be an upper limit for shallow footings at this site to limit total and differentialsettlement. Footings carrying significant eccentric loading, such as below retaining walls, may need to beassessed separately.

Settlement of the proposed structures will depend upon a number of factors including the applied pressures,footing size and base preparation. The estimates of settlement provided in Table 1 and

Table 2 assume that the foundation preparation measures detailed in Section 5.3 have been completed.

The estimated settlements are for the working bearing pressure values shown. Differential settlements of upto half of the total estimated settlement values are likely between footings of similar dimensions and loads. About 70% of the settlement is expected to occur during construction.

5.3 Site PreparationThe following site preparation procedures are recommended:

Remove all topsoil, pavements and any other deleterious materials from the site including grubbing outroots and removing organic matter. Any unsuitable or deleterious material encountered duringexcavation should be removed from the site.

Carry out proof compaction of the exposed surface with suitable vibratory compaction plant to achievethe level of compaction required by Section 5.3.1 to a minimum depth of 0.9 m below underside offootings, slabs on ground and the full depth of any fill.

Where required, place approved granular fill in layers of no greater than 0.3 m loose thickness andcompact each layer to achieve the level of compaction required by Section

at 5 m centres along strip footing excavations; and

on a grid at 5 m centres beneath slab-on-ground floors.

5.3.1 .

Confirm that the specified level of compaction has been achieved to a depth of 0.9 m below thefounding level by testing:

each spread footing excavation;



8/27


9/27


Table 3: Earth Retaining Structure Design Parameters

Layer Angle ofInternalFriction,

'

Coeffici ent ofDrained EarthPressure at

Rest, K 0

SoilDensity,

Coeffic ient ofDrained ActiveEarth Pressure,

Ka

Coeffici ent ofDrained PassiveEarth Pressure,

Kp

SAND - mediumdense to dense 36 0.5 18 0.26 3.85

SAND - dense 38 0.5 18 0.24 4.20Note: Wall interface friction angle ( ) assumed to be 0 .

5.6 Earthquake Site Sub-Soil ClassBased upon the requirements of Australian Standard AS 1170.4 2007, available geological maps and

subsurface conditions encountered, an earthquake site sub-soil class of C e shallow soil is consideredappropriate for this site.

5.7 Groundwater As discussed in Section 4.3 , groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. Groundwater istherefore not likely to influence the development.

5.8 Stormwater DisposalIn situ permeability tests were performed at about 1 m depth within two hand auger boreholes. The testresults are given in Table 4 and show field permeability values of 8 m/day and 13 m/day.

Table 4: Field Permeability

Location Field Permeability, K(m/day)

IT1 8IT2 13

For design purposes, we recommend that a field permeability of no greater than 5 m/day be used to allowfor:

densification of the in situ sands during site preparation;

migration of fines into the subsurface soil through infiltration basins or soak wells; and

clogging of soak wells or infiltration basins by other means during their service life. An adequate factor of safety must be incorporated into the design of any stormwater disposal system.

5.9 Pavements and Floor SlabsIt has been assumed that pavements will be founded on clean sand fill or the in situ sands. A subgradedesign CBR value of 12% is recommended for pavement design where the recommended site preparation(Section 5.3 ) has been carried out. The sand subgrade should be compacted to a minimum dry density ratioof 96% (Modified compaction) in accordance with AS 1289 5.2.1.



10/27



6.0 LIMITATIONSYour attention is drawn to the document - Limitations, which is included in Appendix D of this report. Thestatements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of thisreport should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with thegroundworks for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted byGolder Associates, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of theresponsibilities each assumes in so doing.


11/27


Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Daniel Brooks Doug StewartGeotechnical Engineer Principal

DMB-DPS/ARC/djl

A.B.N. 64 006 107 857

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

j:\geo\2009\097642481 - bge curtin uni\03 corresponden ce & report\097642481-002-r-rev0.docx

June 2010Report No. 097642481-002-R-Rev0


12/27


13/27


14/27


APPENDIX ACone Penetration Test Results



15/27


16/27

File: GA9299T.txt Dummy probe to (m): Cone I.D. : EC20

Refusal:

Water (m): Dry to 5.7

LOCATION: Bentley

PROJECT: Curtin University - Stage 2

CLIENT: BG&E

7 tonne track mounted CPT Rig.

and IRTP 2001 for friction reducer

Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

Co-ordinates:

Job Number: 097642481

Probe No.: P 1

Date: 15/01/10

ELECTRIC FRICTION-CONE PENETROMETER

0 5 1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

D e

p t h ( m )

Tip Resistanc e Qc (MPa)

0 1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

8 0 0

9 0 0

1 0 0 0

Friction Sleeve (kPa)

T i p R e s

i s t a n c e

F r i c

t i o n

S l e e v e

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

D e p

t h ( m )

Friction Ratio (%) 0 1 2 3 4 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

D e

p t h ( m )

Tip Resistance Qc (MPa)


17/27

File: GA9300T.txt Dummy probe to (m): Cone I.D. : EC20

Refusal:

Water (m): Dry to 4.9

LOCATION: Bentley

PROJECT: Curtin University - Stage 2

CLIENT: BG&E

7 tonne track mounted CPT Rig.

and IRTP 2001 for friction reducer

Tested in accordance with AS 1289.6.5.1 - 1999

Co-ordinates:

Job Number: 097642481

Probe No.: P 2

Date: 15/01/10

ELECTRIC FRICTION-CONE PENETROMETER

0 5 1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

D e

p t h ( m )

Tip Resistanc e Qc (MPa)

0 1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

8 0 0

9 0 0

1 0 0 0

Friction Sleeve (kPa)

T i p R e s

i s t a n c e

F r i c

t i o n

S l e e v e

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

D e p

t h ( m )

Friction Ratio (%) 0 1 2 3 4 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

D e

p t h ( m )

Tip Resistance Qc (MPa)


18/27


APPENDIX BPerth Sand Penetrometer Test Results



19/27

PERTH SAND PENETROMETER TEST RESULTS

Golder AssociatesGolder Form: PF033 RL1

Updated 12/06/08J:\Geo\2009\097642481 - BGE Curtin Uni\06 Fieldwork\Fieldwork 2010-01-14\PSP Test Results.Doc

Job No: 097642481 ______By: DMB Date: 14/01/2010 Page 1 of 1

Project: CURTIN UNI STAGE 2 Location: BENTLEY Checked: DPS

Test No./Blow CountDepth

(mm) BH1 BH2

0-150 SEAT SEAT

150-300 6 2

300-450 8 2

450-600 10 4

600-750 14 4

750-900 18 6

900-1050 10 8

1050-1200 9 111200-1350 9 10

1350-1500 9 8

1500-1650 9 8

1650-1800 9 7

1800-1950

1950-2100

2100-2250

2250-2400

2400-2550

2550-2700

2700-2850

2850-3000

Site Sketch/Comments:

1. All tests conducted adjacent to hand auger borehole location. Refer to Figure 2 Site Plan for these locations.

Test performed in accordance with AS 1289.6.3.3


20/27


APPENDIX CHand Auger Borehole Reports



21/27

GAP Form No. 5

RL8

METHOD OF SOIL DESCRIPTION USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS

Combinations of these basic symbols may be used to indicate mixed materials such as sandy clay.

CLASSIFICATION AND INFERRED STRATIGRAPHYSoil and Rock is classified and described in Reports of Boreholes and Test Pits using the preferred method given in

AS1726 1993, (Amdt1 1994 and Amdt2 1994), Appendix A. The material properties are assessed in the field byvisual/tactile methods.

Particle Size Plasticity Properties

Major Division Sub Division Particle SizeBOULDERS > 200 mm

COBBLES 63 to 200 mm

Coarse 20 to 63 mm

Medium 6.0 to 20 mmGRAVEL

Fine 2.0 to 6.0 mm

Coarse 0.6 to 2.0 mm

Medium 0.2 to 0.6 mmSAND

Fine 0.075 to 0.2 mm

SILT 0.002 to 0.075 mm

CLAY < 0.002 mm

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Liquid Limit ( %)

P l a s

t i c

i t y

I n d e x

( % )

MOISTURE CONDITION AS1726 - 1993 Symbol Term Description

D Dry Sands and gravels are free flowing. Clays & Silts may be brittle or friable and powdery.

M Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition & may feel cool. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.

W Wet Soils exude free water. Sands and gravels tend to cohere.

CONSISTENCY AND DENSITY AS1726 - 1993 Symbol Term Undrained Shear

StrengthSymbol Term Density Index % SPT N #

VS Very Soft 0 to 12 kPa VL Very Loose Less than 15 0 to 4

S Soft 12 to 25 kPa L Loose 15 to 35 4 to 10

F Firm 25 to 50 kPa MD Medium Dense 35 to 65 10 to 30

St Stiff 50 to 100 kPa D Dense 65 to 85 30 to 50

VSt Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa VD Very Dense Above 85 Above 50

H Hard Above 200 kPaIn the absence of test results, consistency and density may be assessed from correlations with the observed behaviour ofthe material.# SPT correlations are not stated in AS1726 1993, and may be subject to corrections for overburden pressure andequipment type.

FILL

GRAVEL (GP or GW)

SAND (SP or SW)

SILT (ML or MH)

CLAY (CL, CI or CH)

ORGANIC SOILS (OL or OH or Pt)

COBBLES or BOULDERS

CLLow plasticity

clay

CL/ML Clay/Silt

OL or ML - Low liquid limit silt

CIMediumplasticity

clay

CHHigh plasticity

clay

OH or MHHigh liquid limit

silt

OL or MLLow liquid

limit silt


22/27

GAP Form No. 6

RL6

EXPLANATION OF NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & TERMSUSED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT REPORTS

DRILLING/EXCAVATION METHOD AS* Auger Screwing RD Rotary blade or drag bit HQ Diamond Core - 63 mm AD* Auger Drilling RT Rotary Tricone bit NMLC Diamond Core - 52 mm*V V-Bit RAB Rotary Air Blast NQ Diamond Core - 47 mm*T TC-Bit, e.g. ADT RC Reverse Circulation BH Tractor Mounted BackhoeHA

ADHHand AugerHollow Auger

PTCT

Push TubeCable Tool Rig

EXEE

Tracked Hydraulic ExcavatorExisting Excavation

DTC Diatube Coring JET Jetting HAND Excavated by Hand MethodsWB Washbore or Bailer NDD Non-destructive drilling

PENETRATION/EXCAVATION RESISTANCE

L Low resistance. Rapid penetration possible with little effort from the equipment used.

M Medium resistance. Excavation/possible at an acceptable rate with moderate effort from the equipment used.

H High resistance to penetration/excavation. Further penetration is possible at a slow rate and requires significanteffort from the equipment.

R Refusal or Practical Refusal. No further progress possible without the risk of damage or unacceptable wear tothe digging implement or machine.

These assessments are subjective and are dependent on many factors including the equipment power, weight, conditionof excavation or drilling tools, and the experience of the operator.

WATER Water level at date shown Partial water loss

Water inflow Complete water loss

GROUNDWATER NOTOBSERVED

The observation of groundwater, whether present or not, was not possible due to drillingwater, surface seepage or cave in of the borehole/test pit.

GROUNDWATER NOTENCOUNTERED

The borehole/test pit was dry soon after excavation. However, groundwater could bepresent in less permeable strata. Inflow may have been observed had the borehole/test pitbeen left open for a longer period.

SAMPLING AND TESTING

SPT4,7,11 N=1830/80mmRWHWHB

Standard Penetration Test to AS1289.6.3.1-20044,7,11 = Blows per 150mm. N = Blows per 300mm penetration following 150mm seatingWhere practical refusal occurs, the blows and penetration for that interval are reportedPenetration occurred under the rod weight onlyPenetration occurred under the hammer and rod weight onlyHammer double bouncing on anvil

DS Disturbed sampleBDS Bulk disturbed sampleG Gas SampleW Water SampleFP Field permeability test over section notedFV Field vane shear test expressed as uncorrected shear strength (s v = peak value, s r = residual value)PID Photoionisation Detector reading in ppmPM Pressuremeter test over section notedPP Pocket penetrometer test expressed as instrument reading in kPaU63WPT

Thin walled tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetresWater pressure tests

Ranking of Visually Observable Contamination and Odour (for specific soil contamination assessment projects) R = 0R = 1R = 2R = 3

No visible evidence of contaminationSlight evidence of visible contaminationVisible contaminationSignificant visible contamination

R = AR = BR = CR = D

No non-natural odours identifiedSlight non-natural odours identifiedModerate non-natural odours identifiedStrong non-natural odours identified

ROCK CORE RECOVERY TCR = Total Core Recovery (%) SCR = Solid Core Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)

100=runcoreof Length

ered recoreof Length cov 100= runcoreof Length

ered recorel cylindricaof Length cov 100

100

>=

runcoreof Length

mmcoreof lengths Axial


23/27

0.10

0.40

0.50

10.40

10.30

10.00

9.90

8.40

H A

SP

SP / GP

SP

L-M

TOPSOIL: predominantly mulch with SAND, fine to mediumgrained, poorly graded, sub-rounded to sub-angular, brown.

FILL: SANDfine to medium grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded tosub-angular, pale grey and brown

FILL: Gravelly SANDfine to medium grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded tosub-angular, yellow, crushed limestone gravel

SANDfine to medium grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded tosub-angular, pale grey

END OF BOREHOLE @ 2.00 mGROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTEREDBACKFILLED

D

MD -D

D -VD

MD

W A T E R

RLDEPTH

D E P T H

( m e t r e s )

M E T H O D

R E C O V E R E D

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

U S C S S Y M B O L

G R A P H I C

L O G

SHEET: 1 OF 1

Field Material DescriptionSamplingDrilling

P E N E T R A T I O N

R E S I S T A N C E

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

DRILL RIG: Hand Auger

CONTRACTOR:

LOGGED: DMB

CHECKED: DPS

GAP gINT FN. F01bRL3

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

JOB NO:

DATE: 14/1/10

DATE: 8/2/10

BG&E

CURTIN UNIVERSITY - STAGE 2

BENTLEY

097642481

SURFACE RL: 10.4 m DATUM: AHD

INCLINATION: -90

HOLE DEPTH: 2.00 m

This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared forgeotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for

information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.

REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH1

G A P 8_ 0 5 A L I B

. G L B L o g

G A P N O N - C

O R E D F U L L P A G E C U R T I N U N I - S T A G E 2 L O G S

. G P J

D W G 6 8 8 2 2 . G D W

1 5 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 0 1 1 : 3

4 8 . 2 . 0 0 6

M O I S T U R E

C O N D I T I O N

C O N S I S T E N C Y

D E N S I T Y

PERTH PENETROMETER TEST(AS1289.6.3.3)

Blows per 150 mm

5 10 15 200 25

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


24/27

0.10

0.50

0.90

1.10

1.30

10.50

10.40

10.00

9.60

9.40

9.20

8.70

H A

SP

L-M

TOPSOIL: predominantly mulch with SAND, fine to mediumgrained, poorly graded, sub-rounded to sub-angular, brown.

SANDfine to medium grained, poorly graded, sub-rounded tosub-angular, pale grey and brown

pale grey

pale grey and yellow

brown

pale grey

END OF BOREHOLE @ 1.80 mCOLLAPSEGROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTEREDBACKFILLED

D MD

W A T E R

RLDEPTH

D E P T H

( m e t r e s )

M E T H O D

R E C O V E R E D

SAMPLE ORFIELD TEST

U S C S S Y M B O L

G R A P H I C

L O G

SHEET: 1 OF 1

Field Material DescriptionSamplingDrilling

P E N E T R A T I O N

R E S I S T A N C E

SOIL/ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

DRILL RIG: Hand Auger

CONTRACTOR:

LOGGED: DMB

CHECKED: DPS

GAP gINT FN. F01bRL3

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

JOB NO:

DATE: 14/1/10

DATE: 8/2/10

BG&E

CURTIN UNIVERSITY - STAGE 2

BENTLEY

097642481

SURFACE RL: 10.5 m DATUM: AHD

INCLINATION: -90

HOLE DEPTH: 1.80 m

This report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations. It has been prepared forgeotechnical purposes only, without attempt to assess possible contamination. Any references to potential contamination are for

information only and do not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of soil or groundwater contamination.

REPORT OF BOREHOLE: BH2

G A P 8_ 0 5 A L I B

. G L B L o g

G A P N O N - C

O R E D F U L L P A G E C U R T I N U N I - S T A G E 2 L O G S

. G P J

D W G 6 8 8 2 2 . G D W

1 5 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 0 1 1 : 3

4 8 . 2 . 0 0 6

M O I S T U R E

C O N D I T I O N

C O N S I S T E N C Y

D E N S I T Y

PERTH PENETROMETER TEST(AS1289.6.3.3)

Blows per 150 mm

5 10 15 200 25

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


25/27



APPENDIX DLimitations


26/27

LIMITATIONS

This Document has been provided by Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder)subject to the following limitations:

This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined inGolders proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of thisDocument, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose.

The scope and the period of Golders Services are as described in Goldersproposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Golder did not performa complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that mayexist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expresslyindicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, donot assume that any determination has been made by Golder in regards to it.

Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of theenquiry Golder was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations inconditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be specialconditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by theinvestigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in theDocument. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.

In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information andassessment provided in this Document. Golders opinions are based uponinformation that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It isunderstood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an

opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited andcannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality ofthe site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations.

Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicatedfrom published sources and the investigation described. No warranty isincluded, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conformexactly to the assessments contained in this Document.

Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previoussite investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that theinformation is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted byGolder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.

Golder may have retained subconsultants affiliated with Golder to provideServices for the benefit of Golder. To the maximum extent allowed by law, theClient acknowledges and agrees it will not have any direct legal recourse to, andwaives any claim, demand, or cause of action against, Golders affiliatedcompanies, and their employees, officers and directors.

This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it andits professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of thisDocument will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use whicha third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to bemade based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts noresponsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result ofdecisions made or actions based on this Document.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD GAP Form No. LEG 04 RL 1


27/27